Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2389220/2007 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 23892 of 2007
=========================================================
KAN
FOODS - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
AJ SHASTRI for Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS LILU K BHAYA for
Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 28/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioner by this petition has challenged the communication at
Annexure-F and it is prayed to direct the respondent authority to
forthwith deal with the application of the petitioner by providing
electricity connection vide application of 19.02.2007.
Heard
Mr.Shastri for the petitioner and Ms.Bhaya for the respondent
Electricity Company.
Upon
hearing the learned advocate appearing for both the sides, it
appears that the impugned communication dated 01.04.2007 has been
issued by the Electricity Company without giving any opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and further, it appears that in the
affidavit-in-reply, the Electricity Company has tried to expand the
scope of rejection of the application by contending inter alia that
the other amount are also outstanding from the partner of the firm
and the decision is sought to be justified.
Considering
the facts and circumstances, it appears that even if the application
for supply of the electricity is to be rejected by the Electricity
Company, as is to result into adverse consequence, it would be
required for the Electricity Company to give an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner who has applied for electricity and after
considering the reply of the petitioner, the matter could be
considered. As no opportunity of hearing has been given, the order
cannot be sustained. Further, as the ground is also sought to be
canvassed in the affidavit-in-reply that the other amounts are also
outstanding, the petitioner is required to be informed for the same
and after considering the reply of the petitioner, the final
decision would be taken.
Hence,
I find that the following directions shall meet with the ends of
justice:
The
Superintending Engineer, Porbandar city, of the respondent
Electricity Company shall intimate within 15 days from today the
details of the outstanding amount and basis of the same for denying
the electricity connection.
The
petitioner shall submit the reply within a week thereafter.
After
giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, afresh decision
shall be taken by the Superintending Engineer of the respondent
Electricity Company within two weeks thereafter. The decision shall
be communicated to the petitioner by Regd. A.D.Post. In the event
the decision is against the petitioner, the petitioner may have the
remedy as may be permissible in law.
In
view of the earlier directions, decision at Annexure-F shall not
survive.
Petition
is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid direction. No order as to
cost.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.)
*bjoy
Top